***

HARSH BUNGER, J. (ORAL) –

Petitioner (Balwinder Singh) has filed the instant Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India inter alia seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for setting aside order dated 05.01.2023 (Annexure P-8) passed by the learned Collector, Bathinda; order dated 20.03.2024 (Annexure P-9) passed by the learned Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot and order dated 26.09.2024 (Annexure P-10) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner, Punjab.

2. Briefly, on account of demise of Sh. Hazura Singh, previous lambardar (Scheduled Caste) of Village Sukhladhi, the proceedings were initiated for filling up the said vacancy. It appears that in the first round of litigation, the Collector, Bathinda vide an order dated 01.04.2014 (Annexure P-1) appointed the present petitioner- Balwinder Singh as the lambardar (Scheduled Caste) of Village Sukhladhi, however, upon an appeal filed by respondent No.4- Nazar Singh, the matter was remanded to the Collector by the learned Commissioner, Faridkot vide its order dated 18.11.2015 (Annexure P-2).

2.1 Thereafter, the present petitioner challenged the Commissioner’s order before the learned Financial Commissioner who vide its order dated 11.12.2017 (Annexure P-3) maintained the remand order passed by the learned Commissioner. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred writ petition (CWP-2121-2018) before this Court, however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 25.07.2022.

2.2 A further intra Court Appeal (LPA No.869 of 2022) filed by the petitioner came to be disposed of vide order dated 30.09.2022 (Annexure P-7) by observing as under:

“Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the view that merely because there has been an acquittal in the criminal matter, it does not give a clean chit to the appellant.

It is, however, clarified that the observations of the Commissioner as well as the Financial Commissioner as also the learned Single Judge shall not be taken against the appellant in any manner. It is further made clear that merely because there was a criminal case registered against the appellant in itself cannot be a ground for not considering the case of the appellant especially when he has been acquitted prior to the date of appointment. What is required to be taken note of by the Collector is the effect of such a case having been registered and the resultant acquittal thereof.

With these clarifications, the present appeal stands disposed of.

CM-2088-LPA-2022 & CM-2090-LPA-2022

In view of the disposal of the main appeal, these applications have been rendered infructuous and the same are disposed of as such.”

3. Upon remand, the learned Collector upon consideration of the matter, found respondent No.4- Nazar Singh as more suitable and accordingly appointed him as the lambardar (Scheduled Caste) of Village Sukhladhi.

4. An appeal filed by the petitioner against the Collector’s order was also dismissed by the learned Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot vide its order dated 20.03.2024 (Annexure P-9) a further revision bearing ROR No.569 of 2024 filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the learned Financial Commissioner vide order dated 26.09.2024 (Annexure P-10).

5. In the aforementioned circumstances, the petitioner has filed the instant Writ Petition before this Court for the reliefs as noticed above.

6. Heard.

7. In the present matter, respondent No.4- Nazar Singh has been appointed as lambardar (Scheduled Caste) of Village Sukhladhi. The said appointment has been upheld by the Appellate as well as the Revisional Authority below. The learned Financial Commissioner while upholding the appointment of respondent No.4 as lambardar (Scheduled Caste) of Village Sukhladhi has observed as under:

“6. I have heard Ld. Counsel for both the parties, gone through their submissions and have also perused the orders of the courts below. The appointment of respondent no. 3 as Lambardar has been made by the District Collector after a careful and thorough evaluation of all candidates, including the petitioner. The District Collector found respondent no. 3 to be the most suitable for the position, given his clean record and integrity. It is well established that every authority responsible for making such appointments is required to be cautious and vigilant in selecting candidates for public office. The candidate background, particularly concerning criminal antecedents, plays a crucial role in the decision-making process. The involvement of the petitioner in criminal cases, regardless of acquittal, is enough to disqualify him from the post of Lambardar. The revenue authorities are expected to appoint individuals with impeccable integrity and a positive reputation in the community. A candidate with a questionable background, especially one involved in criminal proceedings, does not inspire respect in the area. The discretion exercised by the District Collector in this case cannot be considered perverse or unreasonable. The authorities have rightfully considered the petitioner past involvement in criminal cases and his negative influence on the image of the position. Further, the recent Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Harjit Singh vs. State of Punjab and others clearly affirms that even if a person has been acquitted in criminal cases, their eligibility for appointment as Lambardar is still compromised due to the nature of the criminal cases registered against them. Therefore, the petitioner involvement in criminal matters is a valid reason for his disqualification from the position. It is now well settle law that in the matters related to the appointment of Lambardar, the District Collector is the appointing authority. The choice made by the District Collector is required to be respected unless it is found that the order suffers from any illegality or perversity. Even the Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of Tarsem Singh versus Financial Commissioner Cooperation Punjab, 2011 (3) Law Herald 2484 has held that the Collector, being the head of administration at the basic level, is best placed to judge the suitability of a candidate as he directly interacts with the candidates at the time of appointment. Similarly, in Satpal versus State of Haryana and Others, 2011 (3) LAR 636 (P&H), it was observed that the choice of the Collector in the matter of appointing a Lambardar should not normally be interfered with unless the Collector has taken a perverse view or not exercised his choice judiciously. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahavir Singh versus Khial Ram and Others, 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 757 has further clarified that there should not be interference with the choice made by the Collector in the appointment of Lambardar, even if two views are possible, as it is the prerogative of the Collector to compare the merits of the candidates. The petitioner has not demonstrated any illegality or irregularity in the process or findings of the lower authorities.

7. Therefore, keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I dismiss the present revision petition and the orders dated 20.03.2024 passed by the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot as well as order dated 05.01.2023 passed by District Collector, Bathinda are hereby upheld. Copy of this order be communicated to the courts below. File be consigned to the record room.”

8. A perusal of the above extracted order would show that the petitioner has been non-suited primarily on account of his involvement in the criminal cases. Although the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal cases, however, once a person with clean image/antecedents available, then no fault can be found in the choice of the Collector in appointing respondent No.4-Nazar Singh as lambardar. The Authorities below have concurrently held in favour of respondent No.4.

9. Even otherwise it is well settled that in the matter of appointment of lambardar, the choice of the Collector is not to be lightly interfered with even if two views are possible unless there is patent illegality or perversity therein.

10. Keeping in view the above, I find no compelling reason to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the Revenue Authorities below, accordingly the instant writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.

11. All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand closed.

Petition dismissed.

********